Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

1…1112141617…197

Comments

  • #392
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    Various semi military Italian agencies use the aircraft for duties such as coastguard / air ambulance / VIP transport etc. So it looks suitable for the same roles as the PC12NG is destined for. Worth googling it and having a look if you are interested in aviation. I've seen a few in the flesh and it sure is a stunning looking piece of kit!

    Ministerial Transport and Air Ambulance? Fantastic idea. Though I doubt the ministers would be happy with it as it is not a jet. But range? It covers some of North Africa and Eastern Europe on the one tank with a full load. As for air ambulance from Ireland to London airport? Should one be kitted out for Heart/Lunc machine and carrying a few pints of blood? So two pilots, two patients/passengers and and two/three staff ? Sounds like a great choice.

    Actually the US had a tender for a similar aircraft for Afghanistan, for observation and top cover, that could last for extended periods. Where a jet aircraft could not enter a deep valley and move faster than a drone. Ground forces could "paint" a target and the propeller plane could either hang around in the vicinity higher up or return very quickly which a jet cannot do.


  • #393
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Ministerial Transport and Air Ambulance? Fantastic idea. Though I doubt the ministers would be happy with it as it is not a jet. But range? It covers some of North Africa and Eastern Europe on the one tank with a full load. As for air ambulance from Ireland to London airport? Should one be kitted out for Heart/Lunc machine and carrying a few pints of blood? So two pilots, two patients/passengers and and two/three staff ? Sounds like a great choice.

    Actually the US had a tender for a similar aircraft for Afghanistan, for observation and top cover, that could last for extended periods. Where a jet aircraft could not enter a deep valley and move faster than a drone. Ground forces could "paint" a target and the propeller plane could either hang around in the vicinity higher up or return very quickly which a jet cannot do    .




    Isn't that what the broncos were fore?


  • #394
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Isn't that what the broncos were fore?

    Yes to a certain extent and I am sure that the Bronco was excellent work horse for its time. Now fuel efficiency is a factor, and it does no harm to update a nearly 60 year old plane.
    This plane would fulfill a similar role but just more fuel efficient, better counter measures for new SAMS and I am still not knocking the legend of the Broncos.


  • #395
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Doesn't a super tuccano offer that?. Already In afganistan too...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #396
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Okay just read that the new unmanned (undelivered) versions have an endurance of up to 30 hours..

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • #397
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    Markcheese wrote: »
    Doesn't a super tuccano offer that?. Already In afganistan too...

    Nobody said it doesnt but I have never seen technology been a massive advantage in Afghanistan (with the possible exception of the Stinger Vs Hind-D). Its always been single shot rifles vs repeaters or AKs on AKs or AK's on M-4's.
    Massive technological advances like Challengers cannot operate on mountains or narrow valleys. Helicopters rotor blades get torn up by small pebbles and fine sand goes into the air intakes. There has to be some costing on the value of winning a war out there because nobody has gone out there on this side of two thousand years and brought any wealth of any value. However MNC's have gotten Opium out.


  • #398
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Psst....wanna buy some second hand Phantoms? I notice that both the Royal Australian Air Force and the Japanese Air Self Defence Force are getting shut of their F4 Phantoms. Good opportunity to pick up a squadron on the cheap. Does Mach 2.2 so a bit of a goer!


  • #399
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,857 ✭✭✭sparky42


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    Psst....wanna buy some second hand Phantoms? I notice that both the Royal Australian Air Force and the Japanese Air Self Defence Force are getting shut of their F4 Phantoms. Good opportunity to pick up a squadron on the cheap. Does Mach 2.2 so a bit of a goer!
    :rolleyes:
    The trolling is getting stupid now.


  • #400
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,257 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    ted1 wrote: »
    You clearly have no ideas of the role of the Aer corp.

    I wouldn't either.. at a guess I'd say maybe search and rescue or some level of patrol and reconnaissance around our waters..

    Other than that I can't see what they might be at


  • #401
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    Psst....wanna buy some second hand Phantoms? I notice that both the Royal Australian Air Force and the Japanese Air Self Defence Force are getting shut of their F4 Phantoms. Good opportunity to pick up a squadron on the cheap. Does Mach 2.2 so a bit of a goer!

    Yeah, we really need a squadron of planes with 35 year old airframes.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    The Cessnas are even aulder! These F4's are still in front line service with 2 highly professional air forces and no doubt have been well maintained. The AC could cherry pick the airframes with lowest hours / rotations on the clock. Its a very versatile multirole aircraft which would be useful for maintaining an air exclusion zone and for defence of the nation post brexit. Anyway....they could be acquired at a good price. BTW. I see the DF have just splashed out 60 million on some surface to air missiles. Big wonga! Thanks for your quick fire response Sparky!


  • #403
    ZeroThreat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,180 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    sparky42 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:
    The trolling is getting stupid now.

    Between the costs (including human) involved in ancient airframes falling out of the sky and high maintenance time & costs on such antique machines, it would probably just be cheaper over time to operate a single squadron of gripens rather than go down that road....


  • #404
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    The Cessnas are even aulder! These F4's are still in front line service with 2 highly professional air forces and no doubt have been well maintained. The AC could cherry pick the airframes with lowest hours / rotations on the clock. Its a very versatile multirole aircraft which would be useful for maintaining an air exclusion zone and for defence of the nation post brexit. Anyway....they could be acquired at a good price. BTW. I see the DF have just splashed out 60 million on some surface to air missiles. Big wonga! Thanks for your quick fire response Sparky!

    The youngest japanese plane is 35 years old. the youngest. The aussie planes are all older. not really a long term prospect.


  • #405
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    That's all very well...sure we'd all love to buy a brand new top of the range Mercedes....but if ya aren't all that flush (say yer an auld pensioner like meself) ya have to cut your cloth accordingly. That's why Im buyin me turkey from Aldi this year ( staying with the avian theme)


  • #406
    Heraldoffreeent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Heraldoffreeent


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    That's all very well...sure we'd all love to buy a brand new top of the range Mercedes....but if ya aren't all that flush (say yer an auld pensioner like meself) ya have to cut your cloth accordingly. That's why Im buyin me turkey from Aldi this year ( staying with the avian theme)

    Maybe stick with commenting on Turkeys?


  • #407
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Happy Christmas all my friends here and a jet fuelled new year!


  • #408
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,781 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Be careful not to use jet fuel to flambé your pudding. That'd be, um,......terrible.


  • #409
    captpaulf
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭captpaulf


    It's 60M Swedish Kroner - about 6M Euro. NOT 60M Euro.


  • #410
    ZeroThreat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,180 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    That's all very well...sure we'd all love to buy a brand new top of the range Mercedes....but if ya aren't all that flush (say yer an auld pensioner like meself) ya have to cut your cloth accordingly. That's why Im buyin me turkey from Aldi this year ( staying with the avian theme)

    hmmm a theme of a certain avian variety then?......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184


  • #411
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Nice article here about the F-5 Tiger II.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-f-5e-%E2%80%9Ctiger%E2%80%9D-fighter-jet-keeps-getting-better-despite-getting-older-41317


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Its an absolute cracker! Lets have a dozen of them....


  • #413
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,857 ✭✭✭sparky42


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    Its an absolute cracker! Lets have a dozen of them....


    Not really, you seem to be missing this point
    Brazilian experts stress that the FAB’s capability gap with neighboring air forces was only narrowed by the upgrade and that the F-5EM still remains an outclassed fighter in modern air combat due to its shortcomings and old-school design. Regardless, it was the best the FAB could do on a limited budget and the resulting craft was quite good for the money spent.

    They are making use of what they have and their aerospace industry, while not having a budget to do better (given what they have and what they've wasted) doesn't make the fighter anything other than an old design that's "limited" at best. We'd have to source retired airframes then go through a utter rebuild of said airframes in another nation, along with buying all the support equipment.

    All up I couldn't see it making any economic sense for what limited capability they would bring.


  • #414
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Not really, you seem to be missing this point


    They are making use of what they have and their aerospace industry, while not having a budget to do better (given what they have and what they've wasted) doesn't make the fighter anything other than an old design that's "limited" at best. We'd have to source retired airframes then go through a utter rebuild of said airframes in another nation, along with buying all the support equipment.

    All up I couldn't see it making any economic sense for what limited capability they would bring.

    What would be the F5 of today?


  • #415
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    roadmaster wrote: »
    What would be the F5 of today?

    KAI T50 Golden Eagle.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle


  • #416
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Not really, you seem to be missing this point


    They are making use of what they have and their aerospace industry, while not having a budget to do better (given what they have and what they've wasted) doesn't make the fighter anything other than an old design that's "limited" at best. We'd have to source retired airframes then go through a utter rebuild of said airframes in another nation, along with buying all the support equipment.

    All up I couldn't see it making any economic sense for what limited capability they would bring.

    You also seem to be missing some points. The main problem the Brazilians seemed to have was range. We would only be using them for air policing, not taking on the most modern fighters.
    If Private company's can buy them and upgrade them and then use them as aggressor squadrons, then why can we have some for basic air patrols???
    As for economic sense, they are possibly one of the cheapest supersonic fighters in the western world to operate. Hence why some air forces chose them over the F-16.
    I agree they have some limits, (range, service ceiling) but really and truly Ireland only really needs something to intercept unknown aircraft and to police its airspace.


  • #417
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,857 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Leonidas BL wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing some points. The main problem the Brazilians seemed to have was range. We would only be using them for air policing, not taking on the most modern fighters.
    If Private company's can buy them and upgrade them and then use them as aggressor squadrons, then why can we have some for basic air patrols???
    As for economic sense, they are possibly one of the cheapest supersonic fighters in the western world to operate. Hence why some air forces chose them over the F-16.
    I agree they have some limits, (range, service ceiling) but really and truly Ireland only really needs something to intercept unknown aircraft and to police its airspace.


    And if range is an issue how do you deal with a Bear fecking around off the West Coast (as if we had some air patrol capability could we assume that the RAF would still do that?). There's also the lack of the radar supports (either ground based or AWACs).
    Using them for Aggressor work is completely different than using them continuously for active duty.
    For cheapness, sure they were at the time, the question now is how much it would cost to take such old airframes basically rebuild them from the ground up for the duties that we need compared. The Brazilians had the airframes and the industrial capacity and even they are moving to the Gripens for their future.
    I mean is it viable compared to the contracts Eastern EU nations got from Sweden for Gripen airframes on loan? I mean the Czechs got 14 for 10 years for 780m.


  • #418
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    https://www.timesofisrael.com/croatia-formally-nixes-f-16-purchase-from-israel-after-us-objection/

    few f16s going cheap.


  • #419
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,857 ✭✭✭sparky42


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/croatia-formally-nixes-f-16-purchase-from-israel-after-us-objection/

    few f16s going cheap.
    If the US wasn't going to let Croatia (a NATO nation) buy full up Israeli variants they aren't going to let us get them.


  • #420
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    sparky42 wrote: »
    And if range is an issue how do you deal with a Bear fecking around off the West Coast (as if we had some air patrol capability could we assume that the RAF would still do that?). There's also the lack of the radar supports (either ground based or AWACs).
    Using them for Aggressor work is completely different than using them continuously for active duty.
    For cheapness, sure they were at the time, the question now is how much it would cost to take such old airframes basically rebuild them from the ground up for the duties that we need compared. The Brazilians had the airframes and the industrial capacity and even they are moving to the Gripens for their future.
    I mean is it viable compared to the contracts Eastern EU nations got from Sweden for Gripen airframes on loan? I mean the Czechs got 14 for 10 years for 780m.

    A Bear will mess with the range of any jet, but the fact still remains that we cant even get to them and identify them by ourselves.
    The Gripen lease is probably the best for us as I thing it includes training and they can reach about 15,000 ft higher than the F-5.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    I think we'll have to put that fella SPARKY in charge of the entire defence of Ireland ! Sure the fella has the last word on everything.. the man is a military genius! If auld Jonny Hitler had him on board we would probably had a different outcome for WW2. God Bless him. Sure he's a grand auld divil. A genius !


Advertisement